If you don’t
mind me, if I can address this from a broader issue, you’ve touched on another
great example. We have clearly over 800 pieces of model legislation, and
they’re all there. John, me, my other, the rest of the ALEC staff, even the
ALEC board, we don’t know who’s reaching in and grabbing what. It’s a library
service to members, should they choose to want to use it … And they use it, and
they don’t even tell us, and they may not go on the floor and say this is ALEC
legislation, they have to go through, you know, what, the bill becomes theirs,
so we have no idea.

Too bad, they say, for grandma,
who has voted in every election for the past 65 years but doesn't have a
driver's license anymore and because she was born at home does not have a birth
certificate necessary to get a government-issued photo ID.

Too bad, Republicans say, for the
student whose driver's license address differs from his university address and
whose college photo ID does not have an expiration date.

Too bad, the GOP says, for the
urban single mother who does not have a driver's license or the time or money
to apply for a birth certificate with a raised seal required to apply at
another office for a state identification card.

Voter ID restrictions work for the
rich. They've got birth certificates and photo driver's licenses and passports.
Or they can send a servant or secretary to apply for the documents. And the
more rabble removed from the polls, the more weighty the votes of the wealthy.

In the Halcyon Days of democracy, the unwashed masses were actually
urged to vote with slogans like: "If you don't vote, you don't
count."

Now corporations, 1 percenters and Republicans are working to ensure
you don't vote because they honestly believe you don't count.

The whole post is very to the point - just like Leo.
The whole post is a must read.
The whole post is about the 99%.

The only thing the post if missing is this statement by Paul Weyrich - founder of ALEC.

DON'T EVER FORGET THAT STATEMENT!
Your ability to vote - depends on you not forgetting.

The whole issue was caused by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
- based on ALEC's power and influence in the state legislatures- if it were not for ALEC - this issue - would not be an issue.

PLEASE do not forget that when YOU are allowed to enter the polls and vote in November.NO ALEC member or alumni should be re-elected - ever - in any state - anywhere.

Not enough legislators leaving yet – but good.
At least the Dems are started to get out of ALEC
– why in the hell Dems chose to belong to the conservative extremist American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) – is a mystery to me –

Those must be damn good parties with LOTS OF FAVORS that htye have at ALEC meetings.

The Nebraska senators jumping off the sinking ship of ALEC isn’t
where I want to go – alleged defectors are popping up everywhere.

What I want to bring to your attention to was two paragraphs
in that article that really point out how incredibly dangerous ALEC is.

Last night I was reading an article that interviewed the
Executive Director of ALEC back in the 1990’s and the ALEC focus became
clearer to me. Based on that interview:

·State legislators are the most ignored part of
government and ALEC gives them a voice

·It’s easier to get something passed at the state
level than the federal level – because if a bill is introduced in 15 states and
seven say , no – you have still won in 8 states – where as if Congress says no
- - it is no!

Here are examples of where those poor ol' ignored state legislators are
wined and dined at fancy resort destinations by ALEC and the ALEC profit sector
members - and ethical questions came up.

How often has this happened in YOUR state and no one was
aware of it?

In 2003 the group paid the expenses of 13 Nebraska
lawmakers to attend an ALEC convention in Las Vegas at the Venetian hotel and
casino at a time when the Venetian was lobbying the Nebraska Legislature to
allow casino gambling in the state. The incident raised ethical concerns about
perks and gifts provided to senators.

In 2001 the Legislature passed a bill to soften a ban on
diet supplements containing a stimulant known as ephedra. Then-Sen. Pam Brown
introduced the bill after meeting representatives of a diet drug company at an
ALEC convention. That company, Metabolife, spent $134,000 on lobbying and made
several campaign contributions to get the bill passed. The FDA banned ephedra
three years later after it was linked to 155 deaths.

How much evil has been brought back into your state
after your legislators have been wined and dined at a fancy resort location, complete with party
favors?

We have to get ALEC legislators - current members and ALUMNI - out of office – ALL of
them!!!!

The party of fiscal responsibility has screwed up royally
in the State of Minnesota and the facts that are coming out may indicate that
this could be a national issue. AND the GOP may be dragging unsuspecting
citizens into this drama.

Some of the financial GOP drama in Minnesota has
included:

The Minnesota Republican Party is facing eviction for
nonpayment of more than $111,000 in rent

and $2 million+ in reported debt.

The latest scandal after the request of Common Cause MN
for an investigation into possible “shell companies” that may have been
established to hide GOP debt. And with a
wave of the wand and a shout of “Abracadabra!” the following article appeared
in today’s Minneapolis Strib.

Snips below - but you gotta read the whole thing - just regular folks, supposedly screwed by the GOP in order to "cook the books".

Men listed as chief executives of
a company created to handle 2010 recount debt are dumbfounded that their names
were sent to the state.

Fraley's fight to get his name
removed from the corporate filings for Count Them All Properly is coming to
light as state regulators and a watchdog group are probing whether the company
was created chiefly to keep debt off the books of the state Republican Party,
which owes creditors $2 million, including recount debt.

In the last two years, Count Them
All Properly has listed two CEOs, both of whom say they have never heard of the
company. Count Them All Properly has no corporate office, no phone number and
no website. It does, however, have roughly $500,000 in debt, mostly to recount
lawyers.

The company was incorporated in late 2010 by Daniel Puhl, a former
administrator for the Republican National Committee who specializes in
helping political parties, businesses and candidates work with the Federal
Elections Commission.

Mr Puhl’s LinkedIn page shows this as his resume just
before, during and after the incorporation of Count Them All Properly in 2010.

CFO and Director of Administration

Republican National Committee

Nonprofit;
51-200 employees; Political Organization industry

June
2011 – April 2012 (11 months)

Manage
the financial, HR, facilities, IT, and Constituent Services areas for the organization.

Volunteer
director serving at the pleasure of the Society's membership to work in
conjunction with the board and staff in a strategic capacity. Collaborates on
budget oversight and investment policy oversight.

Friday, April 27, 2012

Today there are so many articles out there that make general statements about the goal of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to privatize everything. Many of us that have researched ALEC take for granted that everyone knows the history behind those general statements and we forget that people haven’t seen and read – what we have seen and read.

In this entry I am going to give you some historical background on ALEC’s goal of privatization of public goods and services.

It’s long – but if you finish it – you too, will understand.

The government should not be in the business to compete with private sector services.

1995

PUBLIC-PRIVATE FAIR COMPETITION ACT

Summary

This act prohibits government from engaging in any commercial activity of any goods or services to or forgovernment agencies or for public use which are also offered by private enterprise. It establishes a Private Enterprise Advisory Committee to act in conjunction with the state auditor to review and make determinations concerning state agencies engaged in or proposed to be engaged in activities which unfairly compete with the private sector. It also establishes a system to resolve complaints from the private sectorregarding unlawful government activity established in this Act.

Model Legislation

{Title, enacting clause, etc}

Section 1.

This Act shall be known and may be cited as the Public-Private Fair Competition Act.

Section 2. {Statement of purpose}

The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that the growth of private enterprise is essential to the health, welfare, and prosperity of this state and that government competes with the private sector when it provides goods and services to the public. It is the intent of the Legislative Assembly and the purpose of this Act to protect economic opportunities for private industry against unfair competition by government agencies andenhance the efficient provision of public goods and services. It is also the intent of the Legislative Assembly that issues and complaints regarding competition between government and the private sector be addressed by the state auditor, with advise from the Public Enterprise Advisory Committee created by this Act.

OOPS, might be typo there – That bolded line in the summary should probably read:

It establishes the ALEC Private Enterprise Advisory Committee to act in conjunction with the state auditor to review and make determinations concerning state agencies engaged in or proposed to be engaged in activities which unfairly compete with the ALEC Corporate private sector members.

As an ALEC legislator – in case you are too slow to understand the bill as written above – they give them a summary to work off of.

Public-Private Fair Competition Act.

The intent and purpose of this act are to protect economic opportunities for private industry against unfair competition by government agencies and enhance the efficient provision of public goods and services.This act prohibits government from engaging in any commercial activity of any goods or services to or for government agencies for public use which is also offered by private enterprise. It establishes a Private Enterprise Advisory Committee to act in conjunction with the state auditor to review and make determinations concerning state agencies engaged in or proposed to be engaged in activities which unfairly compete with . the private sector. It directs the state auditor, in consultation with the committee, to adopt rules necessary to govern the public bidding process & by the private enterprise, It also establishes a system to resolve complaints from the private sector -. regarding unlawful government activity established in this act. (Sourcebook, Vol. 1, p. 115)

OOPS, might be typo there – That bolded line should probably read:

This act prohibits government from engaging in any commercial activity of any goods or services to or for government agencies for public use which is also offered by ALEC Corporate private enterprise members.

Thae “Public-PrivateFair Competition Act” evidently wasn’t working too well for them – so they re-worked it and renamed it.

They introduced this one also in 1995 and reintroduced it again – in 2002

Efficiency in Government Act

Section 2. {Legislative Intent.}

(A) It is the public policy of the state to provide the highest quality services at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers. Efficiency cannot be achieved, however, if government is permitted to act as a monopoly, with no competitive incentive to reduce costs or improve services. In order to achieve competition and efficiency, decisions about how services should be provided must be governed by three fundamental principles:

(1) The government should not be in the business to compete with private sector services. Government should look first to the private sector to provide the goods and services that the public needs.

(2) Certain functions are inherently governmental. These activities are intimately related to the public interest.

(3) When activities are not clearly governmental functions, the government should conduct a rigorous comparison of private sector costs and in-house costs.

OOPS, might be typo there – the statement in item (1) – should read:

The government should not be in the business to compete with ALEC private sector members.

Again they had to put a summary of the bill out there for their ALEC legislators that were a little slow and maybe couldn’t understand the entire 5 page piece of “model legislation”.

EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT ACT

This bill establishes the framework for streamlining government and promoting efficiency in government. Efficiency cannot be achieved if government is permitted to act as a monopoly, with no competitive incentive to reduce costs or improve services. According to the bill, in order to achieve competition and efficiency, decisions about how services should be provided must be governed by the three following fundamental principles: (1) the government should not be in the business to compete with private sector services. Government should look first to the private sector to provide the goods and services that the public needs; (2) Certain functions are inherently governmental. These activities are intimately related to the public interest; (3) When activities are not clearly governmental functions, the government should conduct a rigorous comparison of private sector costs and internal costs. A process is set up to evaluate current activities, call for petitions of interest, and implement make or buy analyses. In addition, competitive contracting provisions and rules for cost analyses are established. (sourcebook p.l2l)

And then you have this from Inside ALEC May 2011

This is in keeping with ALEC’s commitment to free markets and limited government. Unfair competition between private companiesand government subsidized enterprises isdealt with specifically in our Public-PrivateFair Competition Act.

So almost 20 years later, they are still trying to push the good old “Public-PrivateFair Competition Act”, even though they also have the "Efficiency in Government Act" - so evidently things weren't moving fast enough for them - after the 2010 elections.

OOPS, might be typo there – that paragraph from May 2011 should probably read:

This is in keeping with ALEC’s commitment to free markets and limited government. Unfair competition between ALEC private sector member companies and government subsidized enterprises is dealt with specifically in our Public-PrivateFair Competition Act.

And if you didn't catchthe gist of ALEC's obsession with "government monopolies" - here are some, of many other, additional quotes from other ALEC publications that will help you better understand ALEC's fixation on this topic.

1996 ALEC Business Plan

Report Card on American Education ALEC will publish the fourth annual Report Card on Education in 1997. It is our most quoted work and makes the compelling case for revolutionary change in our monopoly education system .

The basic problems are a centralized governmental education monopoly and teacher unions that assess dues and then utilize them for political purposes…True reform is possible if we can curb the teacher unions, implement charter school legislation, and get school voucher programs passed.

From the 2002 ALEC publication Tax Crisis in the States

The cash infusion from asset sales gives states a breathing period until revenues start rising again at normal rates. Turnpikes, liquor stores, prisons, state buildings, highway maintenance operations, college dormitories - the list of possibilities is endless. To be sure, care has to be taken not to create private monopolies as invidious as the existing public government monopoly, but there are ways this can be done.

From the 2002 ALEC publication Report Card on American Education: A State-by-State Analysis, 1976-2001

And finally, by forcing the veritable monopoly that is our public school system to compete in an open educational market, we can harness the immense power of the free market system to bring about improvements in our nation’s schools.

From the 2007 ALEC Report Designing School Choice

Any state constitutional provision that, like the failed amendment to the federal Constitution of the same name, prohibits providing public funds to “sectarian” schools. These amendments were designed to retain a monopoly on state education funds

The United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS)— the government-contracted monopoly that maintains the organ waiting list—

Inside ALEC Article from October 2007

Lawmakers in Iowa should look to Michigan to see that when unions gain monopoly bargaining power they begin to serve as an albatross around the neck of a state’s economy.

Inside ALEC 2008 in an article on higher education accreditation

The accreditors have been allowed to carve up the country into regional cartels, giving institutions virtually no choice in the accreditor they can use. And given the monopoly they exercise, accreditors have been able to apply intrusive, prescriptive standards. Sadly, Congress has allowed them to get away with it.

And, oh yeh – at one point they had to take a jab at the other side of the aisle. In the ALEC Rich States Poor States published in 2009 you will find this statement:

Today, Republicans control a grand total of zero U.S. House seats in all of New England.

And what are they in charge of? A region consisting almost solely of tax consumers sows the seeds of its own destruction.

The good news is that the left’s monopoly status in this region is almost inconsequential.

And to end the quotes – from the 2009 edition of the ALEC report RichStates, Poor States

ALEC is governed by a Board of Directors of state legislators, which is advised by a Private Enterprise Board representing major corporate and foundation sponsors.

AKA - LOBBYISTS

So you see folks-

It appears that the ALEC privatization agenda is all about making sure their Corporate Profit Sector DONORS get their monies worth.

To ALEC it’s like playing that board game

– the one with Park Place

– and ALEC and their ALEC corporate profit sector members

always get Park Place and Boardwalk

– and ALEC has always picked the "get of jail free" card and always collected $200.

Lesko’s “leaked emails” have a tendency to be a wealth of information for the opposition.

Well it happened again.

This past week- in an effort to save poor ol’ ALEC – the following Lesko email got leaked again (PFAW).

Debbie Lesko and other ALEC legislative members both present and past would like to invite you to a meeting thisThurs. (April 26th), 11:00am at AGC to get the latest update on the fight that ALEC is waging in the media against its detractors. We would really appreciate your attendance

Russell D. Smoldon

Senior Director Government Relations

SRP

SRP being the Salt River Project – the AZ State Profit Corporate Sector Chair

Looks like ALEC is rounding up the old members – that is why it is important to know who the old members are. Because they ARE STILL ALEC-ers.For a Feb 2012 list of over 3,000 past and present ALEC-ers, see this diary at Daily Kos.

And as always, a list of current ALEC-ers for every state can be found at ALEC Exposed.

We would appreciate your attendance

And the Corporate profit sector members showed up!!!!

They have way too much invested in ALEC and ALEC legislators and ALEC Alumni to not be kept in the loop.

And god forbid – Lesko would send an email update…..

Well the lobbyists all showed up and click >>>> this link<<<<< to see what they looked like walking in.

Wonder what they are talking about - maybe about how much money they have invested into buying ALEC legislators and how ALEC has turned into a toilet that needs to be flushed - money and all?

Customers should be able to know if companies that they are supporting with their purchases are busy spending money on groups that undermine environmental regulations, attack workers’ rights, promote “Stand Your Ground” gun laws, advance discriminatory “Voter ID” laws, and otherwise bolster the right-wing legislative vanguard. And if these consumers don’t like this behavior, they should be at liberty to take their business elsewhere.

That proposition seems to fall pretty safely within a free market, vote-with-your-dollars paradigm. In fact, watchdogs who are providing consumers with full information about misbehaving corporations should be seen—again, within a free-market framework—as providing a valuable service, since informed consumers are supposed to be an important part of efficiently functioning capitalism.

But no. If you ask right-wing talking heads, campaigners who dare to suggest that consumers express displeasure with corporations are waging a war on “open thinking and discussion of legislation.”

I have to be honest – I have no idea what this article
says. (I only speak Minnesotan.)

BUT – I did use a
translator site and input a couple of phrases and it seems legit

and since it is from the Nation magazine

– I feel secure in
posting the link here.

I am not an English-only type person like the members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) – so I hope that this article can be shared across the web to help educate
others. Everyone needs to know about ALEC.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

This brief was prepared by Cynthia Cox, Larry Levitt, and Gary Claxton of the Kaiser Family Foundation as part of the Kaiser Initiative on Health Reform and Private Insurance, which examines the implications of changes in the private insurance market under the ACA and informs federal and state policymakers as they implement provisions of the law.

A Snip from the report

Insurer Rebates under the Medical Loss Ratio: 2012 Estimates

By August of this year, insurance companies will be required to issue consumer rebates if they were not in compliance with the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for 2011. Under the MLR rule, insurers offering health coverage to individuals and small businesses must spend at least 80 percent of their premium income on health care claims and quality improvement activities, reserving 20 percent or less for administrative expenses such as administering coverage, marketing products and earning profits for investors.1 The MLR threshold is higher for large group plans, which must spend at least 85 percent of premium income on claims and quality improvement, leaving 15 percent or less for administrative expenses. If insurers fail to meet these requirements, they must pay rebates to consumers. The amount of the rebate will depend on the extent to which the insurer fell below the threshold.

Actual rebate amounts – which will be based on information to be submitted by insurers to the federal government – will likely vary. In some cases, consumers or employers may receive their rebates in the form of a discount on future premiums, rather than a check.4 Rebates in the group market will generally be provided to employers, and in some cases be passed on to employees as well.5 For people who were only enrolled during part of the year, rebates will be prorated accordingly. Insurers issuing rebates will be required to send notices to consumers alerting them of the amount of the rebate and the manner in which it will be administered.

Based on the preliminary estimates from insurers, rebates would total $1.3 billion this year, including $426 million in the individual market, $377 million in the small group market, and $541 million in the large group market. While total rebates are highest for large employers and their workers, many more people are also covered in that market segment.